I'll admit that things probably have changed in the last 10 years - and honestly it was roughly 15 years ago - Sinop, Samsun - they have probably changed. When I was there, Sinop was small and the people were pretty "conservative". Now, in fairness to the folks in town, it was Market days when the most "conservative" folks showed up. I guess it's the folks who live out of the cities, country folk who are more conservative, as in many countries - the U.S. included. I didn't mean any disrespect when I said that IMHO you probably respect or revere Kemal Ataturk as highly as some people in other countries revere or respect the prophet. I know he was the father of your country, saved it, brought Turkey into the twentieth century... I think as an American, I look at Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and others in our group of "founding fathers" - and I think, to a Turk, Kemal Ataturk is all of that, and more, rolled into one. Written Turkish - Didn't Ataturk hire a french language specialist to create the Turkish alphabet? I am really shaky on my knowledge there - it's been years. Do you mind refreshing my memory? I may be WAY off target there. I can see where the historical precedent of the caliphate supporting the indonesians would bias the indonesians against Turkey. Man, that was... how many centuries ago? They need to get over it! :-) Cheers, E.

"I didn't mean any disrespect when I said that IMHO you probably respect or revere Kemal Ataturk as highly as some people in other countries revere or respect the prophet." I have a great respect for the Founding Fathers, but I don't put them on the same level as Jesus Christ. Just an observation. And I wouldn't want someone to get the opposite impression.

True, but the prophet was a mere human. Therefore, as any other human who has made a great contribution (if you consider his contribution to be great) then why wouldn't you put him and a "founding father" figure, who is rightly revered on a similar pedestal? Christ was the Son of God. I would never compare Him to the founding fathers either. I might compare one of the Appostles, say Paul (who was originally a pharrisee, a "law" guy) with one of the founding fathers that helped do the actual writing of the constitution... if that makes any sense! E.

"True, but the prophet was a mere human." I don't think that Moslems would say that Mohammed was a 'mere' human. For instance, they make certain claims about him (and other 'Apostles') which Christians would only make of the Christ - for instance that he was without sin (from at least the time of the beginning of his ministry, depending on the sect you follow). If I were a pious Moslem, I would not even be able to speak of The Prophet without appending to his name a traditional blessing. To do less is considered disrespectful. If I, when speaking of the Christ, who I do not consider to be a mere man but rather God incarnate by himself to redeem the world unto himself, do not do the same, how much less then would you expect Moslems to apply an adjective like 'mere' to the Prophet or compare him to other men?

Turkey changed a lot in last 15 years. Written Turkish- Turkish alphabet created from latin alphabet by a council of linguistic experts. I never heard of a French man in that council and I have read a lot about the period. But still there migh be one. The first Turkish nation to use a version latin Alphabet was Azerbeycan between 1918-1921. At 1921 Russians invaded Azerbeycan and force the country to use a version of Kiril alphabet. The point is latin alphabet has suited Turkish language much better than Arab Alphabet which we used at Ottoman Empire times. Gokturks and Uygur Turks had created their own alphabets which are now known only by linguistic experts. We believe all of the prophets were exceptional humans chosen by God, to tell the world God's word. Prophets can have sins (although as they are exceptional, they are unintentional) as not making mistakes is only a trait of God. Not humans. Muslims use traditional blessing "Hazreti", short form "Hz." for every prophet mentioned at Kuran as a respect. This prophets include Hz. Mohammet, Hz. Jesus, Hz. Moses, Hz. Abraham, Hz. Solomon, Hz. Yusuf (can not remember English version of his name), Hz. Yunus, Hz. Noah up to Hz. Adam (the first man and also first prophet). There is Sure in Kuran how Hz. Yunus sinned by abondoning the people he was obliged to tell the God's word because of mistreatment he received. But after a time he understood his mistake, and returned to his duty. (That was one of my Grandfather's favourite stories, to teach as everyone even a prophet can make mistakes or a sin but it is never to late to be sorry and correct your mistake.) Muslims believe that Hz. Jesus was a prophet of the God (not his son) and he did not die at the Cross. It is believed that the traitor (I believe it was Judas) was the one who was at the cross died because by divine justice Romans by mistake took him instead of Hz. Jesus. It is an Islamic belief that Hz. Jesus never died and he will come back to world just before Armegedon. I have read that there were several Christian sects which also believed in this way. Pope declared these sects as infidels. Bogomil sect was one of them and very popular in Bosnia. Kings of Hungary had gone to Crusade against them by Papacy support several times to convert them by force to Catholism. That is why Bogomil Bosnians had selected to become Muslims en masse when Ottoman Empire had conquered them. Bosnians had several special rights at Ottoman Empire because of this.

"I have read that there were several Christian sects which also believed in this way. Pope declared these sects as infidels. Bogomil sect was one of them and very popular in Bosnia." Err...I don't want to just come out and say that is wrong, because this isn't something I've ever studied in depth, but that does sound awfully suspiciously like historical revision. I have never heard of a sect of Christianity which taught that someone was crucified in Christ's place. I have certainly seen no evidence that the Bogumils believed that. As best as I understand, the Bogumils were a sect of Paulician Gnostics with beliefs related to the Cathars. It is true that most Gnostic sects do not in fact believe that Christ died on the cross, but for entirely different reasons than those presented by the Islamic texts. Gnostics, for example the Bogumils, believed that Christ didn't die on the cross, becuase they believe that Christ had no body - that he was a purely spiritual being - and therefore could not be killed. And in any event, even if the Bogumils did believe the story taught in the Koran, the Bogumil sect didn't come into existance until the 10th century (when it was founded by a monk in Bulgaria) so its entirely possible that the story was adopted directly from Islamic beliefs. The Bogumils had adopted beliefs from a variety of places. The history, concerning the persecution of the Bogumil sect by the Catholics and Hungarians, and the latter conversion to Islam of the survivors in Bosnia is largely true, but I would caution against any text which attempts to portray the Bogumils as proto-Moslems. For example, the Bogumils held that Satan, and not God had created the world, and that Satan was the brother of Jesus (a belief shared with a certain modern cult). Their (at least reputed) homosexual practices where so infamous that they gave to English the term 'buggery', slang for sodomy. For a brief review of the Bogumils, try here: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bogomil

It was a very common belief amongst many early Christian sects and was even mentioned in at least one gospel that Jesus did not die on the cross. I've read it, but my reference is in storage somewhere up on the central coast so I can't give it to you. Sorry. There was also a Christian belief that Christ was human and not God incarnate. That particular heresy was referred to as Arianism and was very popular amongst German converts to Christianity. The debate over God's Christianity was solved by a Catholic bishop punching an Arian bishop in the mouth, thus ending the debate. I was just as amazed as you when I read that! What ilpars states is all true to the best of my knowledge, it might show catholicism in a rather distasteful light, but it is true none the less. None of it has ever been denied, but it usually isn't mentioned by the Catholic Church.

"It was a very common belief amongst many early Christian sects and was even mentioned in at least one gospel that Jesus did not die on the cross." Err, which gospel would that be? I think you are misunderstanding me here. Yes, it is well known that the Gnostics in thier various stripes denied that Jesus died on the cross. However, you can't take that fact as proof that it was a common belief that Jesus evaded death on the cross by tricking the Jews into believing that someone else was Jesus, and having that person die in his stead. That Islamic tradiation was certainly not to my knowledge widespread prior to the Qu'ranic account. You certainly can't conclude that since the Bogamils believed that Jesus didn't die on the cross, because they believed Jesus to be an angelic being, they also believed that the person crucified was not Jesus. If you believe that Jesus is a purely spiritual being, its not necessary to believe that it wasn't Jesus on the cross in order to believe he didn't die on it. Instead, you believe in symbolic suffering and symbolic death. The Arians were basically just another brand of Gnostics, only 4th century rather than 9th century like the Bogumils. The Gnostics came in so many flavors because they were a mystery religion, meaning that they kept thier doctrine secret and revealed 'mysteries' only slowly to initiates. Mystery religions are particularly prone to doctrinely drift because differnt 'circles' of practicianers aren't really checking against one another.

Reminds me of the Mormons my sister lived in utah for a while an picked up a version of whatever thier holy book is from some door to door missinaris you know anyway i read through it a little just to have a look and the first page i open it to it says something like "And the people who practice the evil ways of our fathers david and solomon with the taking of many wife are also giulty of sin" any way i was like dont alot of moroms practice poligamy even though it says right in there holy book not to so i did some research and apparenty around the time president polk sayed to utah you can either be a state or be poligamists the leader of the mormon church at that time( who is considerd a prophet) had a vison from god telling hime while poligamy was good before its now bad. so they changed there bible. that sounds like the same thing happened somewhere along the way in Islam.

Holy book of Islam, the Kuran was never changed. There were never more than 1 version of Kuran. If that is what you meant. There are different interperations of the same book. From the most modern interperations of Turks to very literal and I might say ruthless interperation of Wahabis (Saudia Arabia).